Re: AAPG on Global Climate Change

Daryl Krupa wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:32?am, J. Taylor <nchiw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Very good Daryl, it is so hard to detect those subtle ad hominem.

I do not know to what you refer.

It is completely irrelevant it was a personal website or the
occupation of owner of it.

No, it is not irrelevant.
The source is unscientific, and unreliable, and inaccurate.
That's why we should only consider peer-reviewed research as an
information source: it reduces the chance that our opinions will be
swayed by clumsy propaganda.

Well, I'm slightly disturbed by this assessment, Daryl. All personal websites don't fit into this category; for one, I've bent over backwards to make sure info on my website on Missouri springs, caves, karst and geology is as accurate as humanly possible. I quite understand relying on peer-reviewed articles for science citations; also, doing a reality check on stuff one finds on the web--everything, including Wikipedia, academic sites and even information posted in online papers published Science or Nature. But not all of us out there are trying to bluff or baffle the public. Interestingly, when (through the generosity of a staff friend--not even an academic) this same web stuff was on an edu address I got many more citation-- the information has not changed, just the location. Granted one expects to find diamonds in a diamond mine not a dunghill, but I'm not sure the web address of information means that much anymore. Caveat emptor, regardless of the online source.

The pie chart is the product of a person who does not respect, or
perhaps does not understand, the logical arguments that support
scientific arguments.
A mine inspector is not someone who should automatically be
expected to be a credible authority on climate change, especially as
his credentials as a geologist may not require scientific
understanding, but rather engineering ability.

I'm not sure this pie chart is original with Heib. It does show up on the Lee Gerhard site, cited by J. Taylor as Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus at the Kansas Geological Survey
http://www.kansasenergy.org/documents/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf
In his powerpoint, Gerhard does not give a further citation to the chart.

I have no idea what Dr Gerhard's educational credentials are as climate scientist, but he does seem to have reasonable credentials as a geologist, including former KS state geo and former president of the AAPG. He seems to have written a number of papers on climatological subjects. I'm skeptical, of course, because I remember Iben Browning, climatologist, who tried to play seismologist.

What do you have to say about the pie?

It should not be considered to be truthful, as it has
no known factual basis.

Well, if one is considering ALL factors which contribute to the greenhouse effect (warming of the earth beyond a dry atmosphere)
water vapor is indeed a major player. The 95% seems overblown, but taking a look at the explanation on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 (check these fellows bios, to ensure they at least theoretically have proper academic credentials)
it still ranks quite high (they cite water vapor alone accounts for between 36% and 66% of the greenhouse effect, and together with clouds makes up between 66% and 85%.)


Water vapor is usually neglected, because for the most part, we are not contributing massive amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere--not in the same way we are contributing CO2, and introducing entirely new manufactured gases. Like solar insolation--there isn't much we can do about water vapor in the atmosphere. We can do something about the minor greenhouse gases.

See also http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf
m and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

The pie chart is disingenous because it compares water vapor (which should be no more than 85%) to volcanoes/biologic activities to manufacturing activities. Talk about comparing apples and ghosts and kittens!

My guess where the 95% figure came from was it was not pulled entirely out of a hat, but resulted when someone tried to compare the percentages of H20 (g) to other known greenhouse gases on a ppm basis in a 'typical' part' of the atmosphere. This difficulty with this is, of course, that H20 is constantly variable-- with a little manipulation, you can come up with any large number you like, because it is true that H20 is more greatly abundant than even CO2 or other trace greenhouse gases. For example:
take .0038 (CO2) and divide by .02 (midpoint of 0 to .04 often given for % of atmosphere which is water vapor) This gives .19 or 2% CO2 vs 98% water vapor. I could see how someone could get such a number, then use Kentucky windage, and get from there to water vapor being 95% of all greenhouse gases.


All this, of course, ignores the facts that though we are smart monkeys, we do NOT entirely know how to manage an atmosphere; that the temperatures needed to maintain water in all three states is a fairly narrow range which we should do our best not to unbalance; and that the effects of continually pumping greenhouse gases into the air are basically unknown. We don't know (despite all the models) where the tipping point is. I trust the scientific method to find the answers to these things, (not the rabble rousing 'let's go back to the caves', luddites) but prudence is in order, since we are experimenting on the only habitable planet we know of.

The middle ground is always a tenuous place to stand.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Has "antenna" died?
    ... which the retention of heat in the atmosphere is not affect by the percentage of greenhouse gases and water vapor. ... Aren't you arguing both sides of the issue now, Cecil? ... Also augumenting/repressing is effects such as atmospheric dust and sulfur dioxide content, and yes, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: AAPG on Global Climate Change
    ... water vapor is indeed a major player. ... about water vapor in the atmosphere. ... the dry greenhouse gases, ... saturation, so you're ok there. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: OT - *Some* Canadians get it . . . .
    ... the whole issue on water vapor is misleading at best. ... "Why Do Human-made Greenhouse Gases Matter When Water Vapor Is the ... the amounts of the various greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere ... including the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Has "antenna" died?
    ... the retention of heat in the atmosphere is not affect by the percentage ... of greenhouse gases and water vapor. ... Besides that.....earth has bigger catastrophic threats than CO2. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Where Theres a (George) Will Theres A Way ... To Deny Global Warming
    ... We are told that there are the greenhouses gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide,. ... methane, nitrous oxide, Ozone and CFC's. ... In order to know the answer to that question, it seems to me you need to know what can man do to eliminate these greenhouse gases, how much much of a drop can be achieved by the efforts of man. ...
    (soc.retirement)